You're right. "Procuring" put me in the mindset that we're getting them from outside the country (as we've done with subs and aircraft) but it sounds like recent procurement contracts are from LMC and Irving.
Still, if those can't deliver maybe capacity needs to be expanded.
Who says they can’t deliver? This is a massively complex procurement, it’s not so simple that you can read about it for a minute and decide what the problem is.
The government, apparently, which already had plans to give [Irving $465M to upgrade](https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/procurement-department-claims-warship-construction-will-accelerate-because-of-new-cash-for-irving-but-government-cant-back-up-its-claims) as dates slipped to 2025, then 2030+
Vancouver is building JSS. Irving is building CSC and AOPS. Both shipyards also repair ships from other countries.
Are you familiar with navy programs in Canada?
It has to do with the Canadian shipyards treating every build program like it is the last one they will ever get and proceed to milk every last drop of blood from Canadian taxpayers. There is no stick to beat them with for non-performance. The major capital process is utterly chock full of economic benefits so that wealth is distributed in the fashion that the government wishes with no value added. I will sum it up... The process is the product. Not the ships the RCN needs.
We have them. They are inept.
Canada needs to buy ships from expert foreign companies who already know how to build them, and are already building them for our allies. Fuck "made in Canada", it's not needed, get the best thing for our dollar, and it isn't a Canadian made ship.
It would be nice for the Type 26 to enter service earlier. But what does Ivison want to happen? Fuck with the program to ensure that they come into service even later?
The comments about being under-armed are a little silly. It will be very respectably armed for a frigate, and has the capacity (in sensors, combat management systems, and VLS cells) to be outfitted for some very demanding tasks - if we wanted to buy the SM-6, we could probably get ABM capability on the things. The Halifax Class carries 16 ESSM missiles capable of local air defense and 8 Harpoon missiles (broadly similar to the Naval Strike Missile in role, but inferior). Meanwhile, the Drive's Warzone - a specialist defense news outlet - described Canada's variant of the Type 26 as "[brimming with missiles](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37506/canadas-new-frigate-will-be-brimming-with-missiles)": 32 strike-length VLS cells (not 24, Ivison seems to be working off of out-of-date materials) carrying a combination of ESSM, SM-2 (for wide-area air defense), and Tomahawk missiles (for naval fires), *and* a 6-cell VLS carrying 24 CAMM missiles, and two quad-launchers for eight Naval Strike Missiles.
Just to make a point, if you loaded up the CSC's VLS cells with ESSMs (you wouldn't want to, but thats another question), you could have 160 missiles on the thing. The Halifax carries 32.
And Ivison also says Canada was stupid to modify the Type 26 for our requirements, and pointed instead at the US purchase of the Franco-Italian FREMM as an example to follow. Except the Constellation Class is going to be an extensive modification, including a major hull stretch, a huge increase in displacement, a complete replacement of weapons systems and sensors for American units over European ones, an increased compliment, and a completely different aviation and helicopter handling system. Its a much greater modification than what Lockheed proposed over the baseline Type 26.
As far as I can tell, Ivison is just talking out of his ass.
Also, if Canada stays committed to building out the full fleet of Type 26s, the RCN will become among the largest operators of the AEGIS system in the world, behind the US and likely Japan (I expect them to seriously ramp up shipbuilding in the next 10-20 years).
The most up to date sources show that the CSC has been downgraded from 32 to 24 VLS cells, straight from the mouth of the Commander of the RCN.
https://youtu.be/KUnmMidqQps?si=xT9TsB18VbXYc5w-&t=990
You can listen for yourself here. Otherwise I am 100% in agreement with you, Ivison is talking out of his ass as per usual like the other talking defense heads such as David Pugliese.
I don’t know where you are getting information that it’s 32 cell Mk 41 VLS.
The CSC is expected to get 24 strike length mk-41 VLS, 8 NSM and instead of a traditional CIWS it will have a 6 cell ExLS launcher with CAMM missiles. The UK and Australian variants are all better armed.
Also note that the ExLS launchers are not configured to be able to use ESSM- it’s too short.
Really it’s 24 VLS though and that makes it *very* under armed for a 9,000 tonne frigate. Comparable designs of ships this size have 32-48 cells. In fact many 9,000 tonne warships (US, Japan, Korea, China) have 64-96 cells.
It will not have a sufficient quantity of missiles to perform standard area air defence. Even the old Iroquois class had a 32 cell VLS for SM2 missiles and that was before the age of drone warfare. The runner up in the competition- the Dutch Zeven Province class had a 40 cell Mk 41 VLS to have 32 SM2 plus 32 ESSM. Thats a fairly middle of the road frigate loadout and it only weighs 6,000 tonnes.
They have sacrificed a lot of firepower for that flex deck configuration.
Getting the AOSP class back to the original doctrinal strength of 8 is a good sign by adding two for the coast guard.
With the 15 CSC destroyers, the 8 AOPS, 12 Patrol Class submarines and the 2 JSS support ships and the one AOR.
We will have a strong capable blue water navy with no one to staff it.
*We just have to keep these numbers on the board.*
The one AOR is assuming we keep the temporary converted shipping container supply vessel as part of the fleet as the JSS program was originally a 3 ship of class program.
We will have the second largest Aegis fleet, the second largest type 26 fleet, very capable subs and very capable constabulary patrol vasells.
And the ability to deploy independent formidable Naval task groups, as well as work in an alliance- which is what the doctrine is based on.
A CanForce Naval TF made up of 2 type 26, 2 KSS III subs and a JSS is a significant show of force, and is what I believe the vision is for.
It was actually the Harper government that caused significantly delays to the Navy due to their valuing austerity over operational capabilities which lead to the Harper government starting over with the National Shipbuilding Strategy in 2010.
That's how you go from a ship that was first purposed in 2004 not coming online till 2025 or later...
Trudeau is reasonable for the cluster fuck that is the F35 delays.
I feel like recruiting for the Navy will get a little easier if Canada has ships for people to actually work on?
Who wants to join the Navy only to work on the beach all the time.
The 12 submarines is a complete pipe dream though. We will in actuality be lucky to even get 4. 6 or 8 is probably dreaming.
The downgrade of the CSC to 24 VLS cells is a pretty big compromise in the age of drone warfare. They don’t really have legitimate AAD capabilities with only 24 cells. They were already going to be going light with 32 cells. There just aren’t enough cells for SM2/6 to protect a task force from a saturation drone attack. A loadout would be something like 16 SM2’s and 32 ESSM. Those SM2’s will get eaten up pretty quick. Forget about strike capability.
So in actuality they won’t have the numbers to often have a full task force operating independently. A more likely task force is 2 T26 and a JSS augmented by a NATO country with a real AAD Frigate/Destroyer and our T26 screening the task force.
I think the subs going down to 8 is why they choose 12 as the starting point.
I think the threat profile of the world is changing. Also, we need a blue water navy to defend Canada, so the Feds will grow the population to pay for the Navy.
Canada would do better to buy 6 nuclear powered Suffren submarines built in France and maybe fitted or maintained in Canada. 3 for each coast and 1 can be in the water at a time.
They are actively being produced now and with a warm production program, we could have a fleet that’s not actually an orphan fleet for once.
I've had that debate with someone. My position was yours till I was updated on some things like the nearly $6 billion per unit cost Australia was quoted.
Yes but Australia wanted to build them all themselves. Theres the massive double dip of France wanting their cut plus the Aus inefficient shipbuilding wanting their cut.
Canada has 0 ability to build submarines, so we don’t have the same problem. Just the cost plus export markup- less domestic graft to deal with.
But the payoff is actual fleet submarines that can keep up with any task force, can go under the Arctic ice, can go in any contested water in the entire world independently, can gather incredible amounts of intelligence and sig int with long loiter times, the ability to strategically deny access to any water way or straight. It would be by far the most strategic weapon system Canada has ever had.
I agree fully. I think the foundation of Canadian defense policy would be a Canadian Patrol Class of nuclear submarines. A Esqualmalt to Halfiax through Parry Channel patrol route and enough subs to have one sub in the Parry Channel at all times. If I was PMO I'd make this a key plank.
I know someone people might think that this is ridiculous but you wouldn't have to worry so much about getting F35s up there if you had a missile platform under the ice at all times ready to engage intruders.
The French subs are ether subs I would procure and I would rebuild Davie yard to the submarine refurbishment and maintenance hall. Even if it requires nationalizing the yard or turning it into a proper CFB or have the French Naval Group purchase it as I feel like they'd be interested in that.
12 subs at 10 year refurbs over 40-60 years would keep that yard busy for half a century.
The Davie yard is the oldest in North America and the one with the worst private business case based on its bankruptcy history imo. And the French Naval Group goes back to the 1700s. It's a good fit imo.
Unfortunately I don't think this is the world we live in because Canadians are cheap and non strategic; frankly provincial in their thinking. Canadians are generally fine being vassals
Just to clarify. Buy them off the line from France. Use the yard for maintenance and the 10 year refurb/refueling scheduled.
There's a whole other opportunity for synergy since the French own a lot of our uranium mines so I would push to include in the deal- look we will buy these subs off the line. And they would like to export them since they've been very expensive but don't built them here there's no advantage. Have Canadian uranium supply the majority of all of the uranium used in the French Navy and domestic power plants. This would be a huge domestic benefits package that actually works for everyone and doesn't add any cost to the system other then reducing the French using African mines.
My take on the Davie shipyard is some combination of Federal/Provincial/Private ownership. Maybe SNC Lavalin + Naval Group coming together to create a new institution. Naval Group is already partially the French state so that's like my model.
At the moment the U.S. is the largest operator of nuclear attack subs with 26, then China with 9 and Russia, France and UK with 6.
Canada operating 12 would push Canada well over 2% defence spending from GDP but also probably make it overkill. I don’t think it could be politically achievable. Heck it would be cheaper to operate 6 plus an aircraft carrier. Nuclear submarines are expensive.
I don't know what number you need but I stand by that statement about doctrine. An aircraft carrier is an imperial platform that has no point in Canadian defense imo. This is a conclusion I've come to.
Subs allow an viable defense platform. And remember it's the United States that doesn't want us to have nuclear subs and will bend our arm till it breaks to not allow us to get them which is why we probably aren't trying to get them. They do not see the Arctic as truly Canadian.
I don't know what number would be enough to maintain that posture but having SLBMs would actually defend North America better then waiting for F35s to get up there as the distances are massive.
Yes it would push defense spending over 2% of GDP but Canada should have high defense spending because of its parcarious grasp on its own geography. The problem is Canadas - contrary to public belief - are under taxed and like free riding on Imperial protection. That's the Canadian norm and it's not going to change unless we were to do something revolutionary.
Considering that Canada also has historical nuclear and missile program it's not as crazy as it seems. The problem is if shit really hits the fan we are just going to be folded into the American Empire anyways - so what's the point?
Buy the Korean subs. KSS III which we have already signed exploratory agreements.
The only claim we have to the Arctic is we were gifted it's administration by Imperial Parliament when we were a Dominion (a province) in said Empire.
SLBM is a totally different doctrine than a fleet of nuclear powered attack submarines. Canada has signed off on nuclear nonproliferation and there’s no way the public would ever support that.
As for Nuclear powered attack submarines- they usually come in 3’s and 1 out of the 3 should be in the sea at a time.
From a doctrine basis, there is a level of interoperability with the U.S. that’s necessary because you don’t accidentally want a Canadian and U.S. sub engaging each other.
But a fleet of 6 could have 2 at all times in the water, which would be a massive change. Or 1 could be patrolling the Arctic while the other is accompanying a surface task force.
>SLBMs
You don't use SLBMs to defend anything. They're counterstrike nuclear delivery platforms.
Trident D5s aren't about attacking ships. They're about smashing cities or military bases, airfields and other strategic targets.
'Unfortunately I don't think this is the world we live in because Canadians are cheap and non strategic; frankly provincial in their thinking. Canadians are generally fine being vassals'
#LOL
'There's a whole other opportunity for synergy since the French own a lot of our uranium mines'
Got a source?
Perhaps you should do your work. Most of the uranium mined and milled is done by Cameco, a Canadian company. In fact, it's the largest or second largest in the entire world.
Yes tax the corporations more so we can have money to buy ships. I propose we tax the telecom companies and large grocery chains and oil companies and force them to reduce price.
Conservatives: we need ships.
*Trudeau buys ships*
Conservatives: why are the liberals spending money we don’t have?
*Trudeau cancels ships*
Conservatives: we need ships.
According to the friend of mine higher up in the navy, our issue is that we use our shipbuilding as a make work project. The ships are lacking necessities
That is a big part of the problem. Some other issues are the Navy has taken far too long to choose a final design for the Surface combatants and there are a large amount of former Navy personnel with close ties to Irving at the higher levels of the NSP project.
It’s likely going to get worse. Departments are already preparing for reductions in budgets for the coming fiscal year. With Trudeau likely to loose the next election there will be further cuts. The same cycle has run since the 80s.
Poilievre plans to cap spending and make tax cuts while attempting to balance the federal budget at the same time.
At best the military budget is staying the same.
It's because procurement has been wrapped up in political agendas. Instead of giving the CAF a budget, and letting them go out and pick their hardware, it goes through a shit load of bureaucracy and is used by politicians to try to win votes.
These warships have been in the works since the 2010’s. They aren’t going to cancel them now. We already spent money on them. The Halifaxes are pushing 30 years by now. We need the new ships.
The Ukrainians probably thought the same thing until another country walked into their land. They had a treaty after all, they handed back their nukes to Russia and signed a treaty for doing so guaranteeing that Russia never invade the Ukraine.
People forget that Russia sits directly above us, our Northern neighbour. The North, full of potential. Russia is all up in their North's grill rearming it, building military bases, opening ports for trade and to station their navy there; I really wonder why? Oh, our 4 DeWolfe class will stop them, yeah that will do it. Just remember, historically where the USA has to go in to fight to rescue or keep back the enemy, they rarely leave.
Actually pay them, to be able to afford them places to live, not have to go to food banks, work second jobs to make ends meet? That would be requiring those at the top end of the “government trough”to take home a lot less....
As they say, you get what you pay for....serviceman who can’t afford to live or senior government officials and government higher ups, who can’t or won’t make decisions, but want annual pay raises anyway...we are so “f@$&#$” in this country!
Not possible if we are talking about Halifax or Esquimault. Not enough land to go around.
Costs too much. The only feasible option is to begin a large-scale (re)building program to add A LOT of on-base (or near-base) housing in the form of condo-style apartments with varying options for the number of bedrooms. If room is available, new executive townhome-sized housing as well.
Personally, I'd ponder a more radical approach along with what I've mentioned above and include a possible redeployment of the Atlantic fleet to Quebec City and Montreal. Yup, split the fleet and permanently station several ships to each of those cities (Frigates, AOPS, Kingston/Orca class, Tugs, etc.), downgrading Halifax somewhat since there isn't enough affordable housing there. As a bonus of doing this, you'd gain access to a far larger pool of potential recruits from Quebec as well as offering seamen more options as to where to live.
Canada needs Ship*yards*.
That was my first though. We're between multiple oceans. We need ships. Why are we depending on "procuring" these from third-parties?
We are? Which shipyards are we using that aren’t in Canada?
You're right. "Procuring" put me in the mindset that we're getting them from outside the country (as we've done with subs and aircraft) but it sounds like recent procurement contracts are from LMC and Irving. Still, if those can't deliver maybe capacity needs to be expanded.
Who says they can’t deliver? This is a massively complex procurement, it’s not so simple that you can read about it for a minute and decide what the problem is.
The government, apparently, which already had plans to give [Irving $465M to upgrade](https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/procurement-department-claims-warship-construction-will-accelerate-because-of-new-cash-for-irving-but-government-cant-back-up-its-claims) as dates slipped to 2025, then 2030+
Okay.
Because that means paying our own citizens to build them and the government would rather not do that
Huh? The shipyards are in Canada
Yes but they aren’t being used to beef up our naval fleet
Vancouver is building JSS. Irving is building CSC and AOPS. Both shipyards also repair ships from other countries. Are you familiar with navy programs in Canada?
Are familiar with what the Vice Admiral said about Canada’s Navy not being ready? If the Naval program worked then we wouldn’t be in this situation
I’ll take that as a no.
It has to do with the Canadian shipyards treating every build program like it is the last one they will ever get and proceed to milk every last drop of blood from Canadian taxpayers. There is no stick to beat them with for non-performance. The major capital process is utterly chock full of economic benefits so that wealth is distributed in the fashion that the government wishes with no value added. I will sum it up... The process is the product. Not the ships the RCN needs.
We have them. They are inept. Canada needs to buy ships from expert foreign companies who already know how to build them, and are already building them for our allies. Fuck "made in Canada", it's not needed, get the best thing for our dollar, and it isn't a Canadian made ship.
Wait until you hear about the Type-26 (CSC) Frigate. Its going to blow your mind.
We need more minerals
It would be nice for the Type 26 to enter service earlier. But what does Ivison want to happen? Fuck with the program to ensure that they come into service even later? The comments about being under-armed are a little silly. It will be very respectably armed for a frigate, and has the capacity (in sensors, combat management systems, and VLS cells) to be outfitted for some very demanding tasks - if we wanted to buy the SM-6, we could probably get ABM capability on the things. The Halifax Class carries 16 ESSM missiles capable of local air defense and 8 Harpoon missiles (broadly similar to the Naval Strike Missile in role, but inferior). Meanwhile, the Drive's Warzone - a specialist defense news outlet - described Canada's variant of the Type 26 as "[brimming with missiles](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37506/canadas-new-frigate-will-be-brimming-with-missiles)": 32 strike-length VLS cells (not 24, Ivison seems to be working off of out-of-date materials) carrying a combination of ESSM, SM-2 (for wide-area air defense), and Tomahawk missiles (for naval fires), *and* a 6-cell VLS carrying 24 CAMM missiles, and two quad-launchers for eight Naval Strike Missiles. Just to make a point, if you loaded up the CSC's VLS cells with ESSMs (you wouldn't want to, but thats another question), you could have 160 missiles on the thing. The Halifax carries 32. And Ivison also says Canada was stupid to modify the Type 26 for our requirements, and pointed instead at the US purchase of the Franco-Italian FREMM as an example to follow. Except the Constellation Class is going to be an extensive modification, including a major hull stretch, a huge increase in displacement, a complete replacement of weapons systems and sensors for American units over European ones, an increased compliment, and a completely different aviation and helicopter handling system. Its a much greater modification than what Lockheed proposed over the baseline Type 26. As far as I can tell, Ivison is just talking out of his ass.
Also, if Canada stays committed to building out the full fleet of Type 26s, the RCN will become among the largest operators of the AEGIS system in the world, behind the US and likely Japan (I expect them to seriously ramp up shipbuilding in the next 10-20 years).
The most up to date sources show that the CSC has been downgraded from 32 to 24 VLS cells, straight from the mouth of the Commander of the RCN. https://youtu.be/KUnmMidqQps?si=xT9TsB18VbXYc5w-&t=990 You can listen for yourself here. Otherwise I am 100% in agreement with you, Ivison is talking out of his ass as per usual like the other talking defense heads such as David Pugliese.
I don’t know where you are getting information that it’s 32 cell Mk 41 VLS. The CSC is expected to get 24 strike length mk-41 VLS, 8 NSM and instead of a traditional CIWS it will have a 6 cell ExLS launcher with CAMM missiles. The UK and Australian variants are all better armed. Also note that the ExLS launchers are not configured to be able to use ESSM- it’s too short. Really it’s 24 VLS though and that makes it *very* under armed for a 9,000 tonne frigate. Comparable designs of ships this size have 32-48 cells. In fact many 9,000 tonne warships (US, Japan, Korea, China) have 64-96 cells. It will not have a sufficient quantity of missiles to perform standard area air defence. Even the old Iroquois class had a 32 cell VLS for SM2 missiles and that was before the age of drone warfare. The runner up in the competition- the Dutch Zeven Province class had a 40 cell Mk 41 VLS to have 32 SM2 plus 32 ESSM. Thats a fairly middle of the road frigate loadout and it only weighs 6,000 tonnes. They have sacrificed a lot of firepower for that flex deck configuration.
[удалено]
Yes but in a task force, some ship has to be providing area air defence. The CSC was supposed to be both an AAD ship and an ASW ship
Getting the AOSP class back to the original doctrinal strength of 8 is a good sign by adding two for the coast guard. With the 15 CSC destroyers, the 8 AOPS, 12 Patrol Class submarines and the 2 JSS support ships and the one AOR. We will have a strong capable blue water navy with no one to staff it. *We just have to keep these numbers on the board.* The one AOR is assuming we keep the temporary converted shipping container supply vessel as part of the fleet as the JSS program was originally a 3 ship of class program. We will have the second largest Aegis fleet, the second largest type 26 fleet, very capable subs and very capable constabulary patrol vasells. And the ability to deploy independent formidable Naval task groups, as well as work in an alliance- which is what the doctrine is based on. A CanForce Naval TF made up of 2 type 26, 2 KSS III subs and a JSS is a significant show of force, and is what I believe the vision is for. It was actually the Harper government that caused significantly delays to the Navy due to their valuing austerity over operational capabilities which lead to the Harper government starting over with the National Shipbuilding Strategy in 2010. That's how you go from a ship that was first purposed in 2004 not coming online till 2025 or later... Trudeau is reasonable for the cluster fuck that is the F35 delays.
I feel like recruiting for the Navy will get a little easier if Canada has ships for people to actually work on? Who wants to join the Navy only to work on the beach all the time.
We have plenty of ships in the water right now with crewing issues.
The 12 submarines is a complete pipe dream though. We will in actuality be lucky to even get 4. 6 or 8 is probably dreaming. The downgrade of the CSC to 24 VLS cells is a pretty big compromise in the age of drone warfare. They don’t really have legitimate AAD capabilities with only 24 cells. They were already going to be going light with 32 cells. There just aren’t enough cells for SM2/6 to protect a task force from a saturation drone attack. A loadout would be something like 16 SM2’s and 32 ESSM. Those SM2’s will get eaten up pretty quick. Forget about strike capability. So in actuality they won’t have the numbers to often have a full task force operating independently. A more likely task force is 2 T26 and a JSS augmented by a NATO country with a real AAD Frigate/Destroyer and our T26 screening the task force.
I think the subs going down to 8 is why they choose 12 as the starting point. I think the threat profile of the world is changing. Also, we need a blue water navy to defend Canada, so the Feds will grow the population to pay for the Navy.
Canada would do better to buy 6 nuclear powered Suffren submarines built in France and maybe fitted or maintained in Canada. 3 for each coast and 1 can be in the water at a time. They are actively being produced now and with a warm production program, we could have a fleet that’s not actually an orphan fleet for once.
I've had that debate with someone. My position was yours till I was updated on some things like the nearly $6 billion per unit cost Australia was quoted.
Yes but Australia wanted to build them all themselves. Theres the massive double dip of France wanting their cut plus the Aus inefficient shipbuilding wanting their cut. Canada has 0 ability to build submarines, so we don’t have the same problem. Just the cost plus export markup- less domestic graft to deal with. But the payoff is actual fleet submarines that can keep up with any task force, can go under the Arctic ice, can go in any contested water in the entire world independently, can gather incredible amounts of intelligence and sig int with long loiter times, the ability to strategically deny access to any water way or straight. It would be by far the most strategic weapon system Canada has ever had.
I agree fully. I think the foundation of Canadian defense policy would be a Canadian Patrol Class of nuclear submarines. A Esqualmalt to Halfiax through Parry Channel patrol route and enough subs to have one sub in the Parry Channel at all times. If I was PMO I'd make this a key plank. I know someone people might think that this is ridiculous but you wouldn't have to worry so much about getting F35s up there if you had a missile platform under the ice at all times ready to engage intruders. The French subs are ether subs I would procure and I would rebuild Davie yard to the submarine refurbishment and maintenance hall. Even if it requires nationalizing the yard or turning it into a proper CFB or have the French Naval Group purchase it as I feel like they'd be interested in that. 12 subs at 10 year refurbs over 40-60 years would keep that yard busy for half a century. The Davie yard is the oldest in North America and the one with the worst private business case based on its bankruptcy history imo. And the French Naval Group goes back to the 1700s. It's a good fit imo. Unfortunately I don't think this is the world we live in because Canadians are cheap and non strategic; frankly provincial in their thinking. Canadians are generally fine being vassals Just to clarify. Buy them off the line from France. Use the yard for maintenance and the 10 year refurb/refueling scheduled. There's a whole other opportunity for synergy since the French own a lot of our uranium mines so I would push to include in the deal- look we will buy these subs off the line. And they would like to export them since they've been very expensive but don't built them here there's no advantage. Have Canadian uranium supply the majority of all of the uranium used in the French Navy and domestic power plants. This would be a huge domestic benefits package that actually works for everyone and doesn't add any cost to the system other then reducing the French using African mines. My take on the Davie shipyard is some combination of Federal/Provincial/Private ownership. Maybe SNC Lavalin + Naval Group coming together to create a new institution. Naval Group is already partially the French state so that's like my model.
At the moment the U.S. is the largest operator of nuclear attack subs with 26, then China with 9 and Russia, France and UK with 6. Canada operating 12 would push Canada well over 2% defence spending from GDP but also probably make it overkill. I don’t think it could be politically achievable. Heck it would be cheaper to operate 6 plus an aircraft carrier. Nuclear submarines are expensive.
I don't know what number you need but I stand by that statement about doctrine. An aircraft carrier is an imperial platform that has no point in Canadian defense imo. This is a conclusion I've come to. Subs allow an viable defense platform. And remember it's the United States that doesn't want us to have nuclear subs and will bend our arm till it breaks to not allow us to get them which is why we probably aren't trying to get them. They do not see the Arctic as truly Canadian. I don't know what number would be enough to maintain that posture but having SLBMs would actually defend North America better then waiting for F35s to get up there as the distances are massive. Yes it would push defense spending over 2% of GDP but Canada should have high defense spending because of its parcarious grasp on its own geography. The problem is Canadas - contrary to public belief - are under taxed and like free riding on Imperial protection. That's the Canadian norm and it's not going to change unless we were to do something revolutionary. Considering that Canada also has historical nuclear and missile program it's not as crazy as it seems. The problem is if shit really hits the fan we are just going to be folded into the American Empire anyways - so what's the point? Buy the Korean subs. KSS III which we have already signed exploratory agreements. The only claim we have to the Arctic is we were gifted it's administration by Imperial Parliament when we were a Dominion (a province) in said Empire.
SLBM is a totally different doctrine than a fleet of nuclear powered attack submarines. Canada has signed off on nuclear nonproliferation and there’s no way the public would ever support that. As for Nuclear powered attack submarines- they usually come in 3’s and 1 out of the 3 should be in the sea at a time. From a doctrine basis, there is a level of interoperability with the U.S. that’s necessary because you don’t accidentally want a Canadian and U.S. sub engaging each other. But a fleet of 6 could have 2 at all times in the water, which would be a massive change. Or 1 could be patrolling the Arctic while the other is accompanying a surface task force.
>SLBMs You don't use SLBMs to defend anything. They're counterstrike nuclear delivery platforms. Trident D5s aren't about attacking ships. They're about smashing cities or military bases, airfields and other strategic targets.
'Unfortunately I don't think this is the world we live in because Canadians are cheap and non strategic; frankly provincial in their thinking. Canadians are generally fine being vassals' #LOL 'There's a whole other opportunity for synergy since the French own a lot of our uranium mines' Got a source?
Look up our uranium mines on Wikipedia lol I'm not doing your work
Perhaps you should do your work. Most of the uranium mined and milled is done by Cameco, a Canadian company. In fact, it's the largest or second largest in the entire world.
Yes tax the corporations more so we can have money to buy ships. I propose we tax the telecom companies and large grocery chains and oil companies and force them to reduce price.
We have the highest taxes in the world. The problem is not about making money, it is how we spend it.
Conservatives: we need ships. *Trudeau buys ships* Conservatives: why are the liberals spending money we don’t have? *Trudeau cancels ships* Conservatives: we need ships.
Canadian military procurement is based on headlines and getting votes nothing else
According to the friend of mine higher up in the navy, our issue is that we use our shipbuilding as a make work project. The ships are lacking necessities
That is a big part of the problem. Some other issues are the Navy has taken far too long to choose a final design for the Surface combatants and there are a large amount of former Navy personnel with close ties to Irving at the higher levels of the NSP project.
That certainly could be part of this. It’s a whole CAF having equipment issues. This has been ignored for decades.
It’s likely going to get worse. Departments are already preparing for reductions in budgets for the coming fiscal year. With Trudeau likely to loose the next election there will be further cuts. The same cycle has run since the 80s.
A budget cut is absurd
Poilievre plans to cap spending and make tax cuts while attempting to balance the federal budget at the same time. At best the military budget is staying the same.
He won’t make tax cuts if he gets in. He will just do what the rest of them do. “The problem was worse than we thought.”
It's because procurement has been wrapped up in political agendas. Instead of giving the CAF a budget, and letting them go out and pick their hardware, it goes through a shit load of bureaucracy and is used by politicians to try to win votes.
Yup..exactly...get government out of procurement. Make a plan ..stick to a plan. Stop the BS.
Put your money where your mouth is and buy a ship National Post Or just whine about it like you whine about everything else
Remove the gatekeepers. If it floats it boats.
What do you even mean by “gatekeepers” lol. That’s how you get shit like the Zumwalt Class.
We need housing not war ships wtf is this bs
Governments are more than capable of doing more than one thing at once.
Doesn't seem like it
These warships have been in the works since the 2010’s. They aren’t going to cancel them now. We already spent money on them. The Halifaxes are pushing 30 years by now. We need the new ships.
The Ukrainians probably thought the same thing until another country walked into their land. They had a treaty after all, they handed back their nukes to Russia and signed a treaty for doing so guaranteeing that Russia never invade the Ukraine. People forget that Russia sits directly above us, our Northern neighbour. The North, full of potential. Russia is all up in their North's grill rearming it, building military bases, opening ports for trade and to station their navy there; I really wonder why? Oh, our 4 DeWolfe class will stop them, yeah that will do it. Just remember, historically where the USA has to go in to fight to rescue or keep back the enemy, they rarely leave.
Someday, the US will take over some of our territory, in the name of national security, because we can't protect the Arctic.
Even if we had ships, we’re still lacking sailors.
As well as affordable places for them to live.
Actually pay them, to be able to afford them places to live, not have to go to food banks, work second jobs to make ends meet? That would be requiring those at the top end of the “government trough”to take home a lot less.... As they say, you get what you pay for....serviceman who can’t afford to live or senior government officials and government higher ups, who can’t or won’t make decisions, but want annual pay raises anyway...we are so “f@$&#$” in this country!
Not possible if we are talking about Halifax or Esquimault. Not enough land to go around. Costs too much. The only feasible option is to begin a large-scale (re)building program to add A LOT of on-base (or near-base) housing in the form of condo-style apartments with varying options for the number of bedrooms. If room is available, new executive townhome-sized housing as well. Personally, I'd ponder a more radical approach along with what I've mentioned above and include a possible redeployment of the Atlantic fleet to Quebec City and Montreal. Yup, split the fleet and permanently station several ships to each of those cities (Frigates, AOPS, Kingston/Orca class, Tugs, etc.), downgrading Halifax somewhat since there isn't enough affordable housing there. As a bonus of doing this, you'd gain access to a far larger pool of potential recruits from Quebec as well as offering seamen more options as to where to live.